I guess I will have to let Vince respond to that one.
Greed and Chess
Sort:
Feb 17, 2009
0
#43
Vance917 wrote:
I guess I will have to let Vince respond to that one.
Sorry, forgot to mention. You've spelt your name wrong ;)
Not worrying about the spelling allows me to become Zen-like!
Feb 17, 2009
0
#45
I'm doing one of those - wise master head nods. Your learning my Vince, your learning.
Now go avenge your brother!
(BTW, I've been watching Kickboxer the movie - that's where I got the inspiration)
Can't recall -- was that Jean Claude Van Damme? His brother from Texas, beat down the Thai guy, turned his back, ...?
Feb 17, 2009
0
#47
Vance917 wrote:
Can't recall -- was that Jean Claude Van Damme? His brother from Texas, beat down the Thai guy, turned his back, ...?
Lol, you've got it exactly right. Don't turn your....ahhh no, he's all messed up :(
That was based on a true story, but it's hard to imagine anybody actually being that stupid!
In a sociology textbook, I have discussed a bit about the sociology of the chess game in terms of social stratification (few minor pieces but many pawns) and social mobility (the promotion of a pawn to a higher piece after reaching the eight row). Also, in most cultures, men are said to be "by nature polygamous" (in chess, one may have, though with difficulty, many queens but only one king). Previously, I showed some chess variants such as a Marxist game (all pawns), a Republican Game, Peasants' Revolt, etc. Is there any one else there interested in the sociology of chess? See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMFkZNWaa4U
FadulJoseA wrote:
In a sociology textbook, I have discussed a bit about the sociology of the chess game in terms of social stratification (few minor pieces but many pawns) and social mobility (the promotion of a pawn to a higher piece after reaching the eight row). Also, in most cultures, men are said to be "by nature polygamous" (in chess, one may have, though with difficulty, many queens but only one king). Previously, I showed some chess variants such as a Marxist game (all pawns), a Republican Game, Peasants' Revolt, etc. Is there any one else there interested in the sociology of chess? See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMFkZNWaa4U
That does sound interesting!
You can be too greedy in your games and overlook a better move that, although it doesn't win material, will result in a winning position for your forces. If you can, however, always try to win the material advantage. Let's say you have executed a Kingside attack and are keeping up the pressure, but your opponent's defences are holding. Suddenly you see that you can win two extra pawns if you break off the attack, and you do so; transposing into a winning endgame. Although this might be considered "greedy", you should always be alert to opportunities of this kind. Sometimes we lose games because of the most obvious mistakes...